Deloitte's View on CMPDI as Sectoral Planner and Coal Scenario in India

1 comment :
CMPDI as sectoral planner: In the wake of changing dynamics in the coal sector, Deloitte, in its draft report, has called for elevating the role of Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Limited (CMPDl). CMPDI is a fully owned subsidiary of Coal India Limited having its headquarters at Ranchi. It provides technical functions in each stage of the mining life cycle. Considering the technical expertise of CMPDl, Deloitte has suggested that CMPDI should be elevated as a sector planner. The consultant has recommended three restructuring options for CMPDl.
Under this first option CMPDl may be made an independent organization reporting directly to the Ministry of Coal. The role of CMPDl would be principally similar to that of CEA for the energy sector with the exclusion of the Drilling and exploration activities. As a technical excellence entity for the sector it can work for CIL as well as other private parties.
Another option which can be considered is to retain CMPDI as a subsidiary for CIL along with the additional responsibilities of the national coal sector planning. This needs to be designed such that it functions and services provided to CIL and its subsidiaries producing more than 80% of the coal as a technical excellence arm continues in current shape. Thus it is imperative that CMPDI acts as a part of CIL yet takes up more responsibilities of that of a sector planner
Under the third model, CMPDI as an existing subsidiary of CIL would continue to stay in its current role. It would continue to act as a technical excellence arm for CIL and other private players. A separate organization should be carved out / created from the employees of CMPDI which would act as sector planner. This organization would report directly to the Ministry of Coal. The function of this organization would be effective planning of the mining industry. The employees of this organization should have rich experience and knowledge of the mining industry for addressing the issues and challenges faced by the mining sector and effectively plan the mining activities.
In its final analysis, Deloitte feels that the objectives of creating a sector planning agency and providing technical services to CIL and captive players is best met through the third option.

Also Read: Coal India Limited (CIL) Restructuring Plan - A Concise view of Deloitte's Draft Report

Coal market scenario in India: According to Deloitte, India's overwhelming dependence on coal is likely to stay. The following are the views of the consultant in this regard:
It is reasonably sure that in the next two decades India will be overwhelmingly depend up on coal for fulfilling its primary energy needs. 2013 BP Energy Outlook predicts the same. It mentions that although Coal consumption in OECD countries will decline by 2030, it will continue to grow in non-OECD countries such as India and China. Interestingly the report predicts that China will remain the largest coal consumer (52% of the global consumption now), while India (12% of global consumption) will overtake US to become the second largest in 2024. China and India will account for 63% and 29% or a combined 92% of overall global coal growth till 2030. For India's energy security, adequate domestic coal production is extremely critical.
However, there is a mismatch between CIL Coal Production and demand for coal from power and other sectors. In the last decade, Coal Production by CIL has grown by 4.5%, with dispatches to the Power sector growing by 4.6%, while the installed capacity base of coal fired power plants in India has grown by 7.4% in the same period. This mismatch has led to imports of coal. Imports have grown significantly over the last 2-3 years and are estimated to reach around 200-250 MT by the terminal year FY17 of the 12th Plan period. This level of imports is not good for India - as it drains our foreign exchange, exposes the country to the volatility of international coal prices, and puts pressure on the allied infrastructure such as ports. Thus, there is increasing impetus from Government of India to improve the domestic coal production.
The introduction of the Coal Regulatory Authority Bill will impact on Coal India Limited's operations. The advent of the Coal Regulator would also create a need for an independent technical body which could offer its services to the Regulator. The Regulator would need technical inputs to facilitate its functioning. Also with the increasing production envisaged in the 12th plan period from captive coal blocks and blocks allocated to the private utilities, there is a requirement for a sector planning agency which would work in tandem with CIL, Captive Block developers and others in order to increase the production and productivity for the entire sector. Comprehensive Integrated Planning (Mine Planning, etc.) would also become a necessity for these captive block developers leading to the requirement of an independent organization who can these provide services. Currently CMPDIL within CIL does these functions and any future structure will have to take into consideration these new requirements.
Based on a consumer complaint, recently Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed a heavy fine on CIL accusing it for exploiting its monopoly position. . Although CIL is going to appeal against this order, it does brings home the facts that there will be increasing scrutiny of its market power in the coming days by different agencies and CIL should gear to mitigate these incoming challenges.
As part of the restructuring study a customer survey was conducted covering clients of CIL from all regions in the country. One common complain of consumers was regarding Quality of coal. They have mentioned that CIL is not able to supply the grade of coal for which they charge the consumer. The calorific values are much lower than what the consumer is supposed to get. Customers also felt that the organization is not very responsive in its customer service in terms of resolving disputes invoices etc.
There are issues plaguing the sector some due to inherent Ownership and Regulatory structure defined by the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act 1973 and some due to issues related to Coal India. The consumer choices and competition as envisaged by induction different players is severely impacted by this law. In our study we have explored options that are feasible within the overall framework of this Act without any further comprehensive amendment to induct private sector participation. The legacy arrangements of fuel linkages, Fuel Supply agreement and their longer term nature also act as a constraint to make any significant overhaul of the system. However we understand there is need to critically look at areas of improvement in CIL, including need for structural changes, which will bring in efficiency in operation and higher production for the country.

Source: Praveen Patlolla, BHEL Executive, RCPuram.

Also Read: Coal India Limited (CIL) Restructuring Plan - A Concise view of Deloitte's Draft Report
Read More

Selected Projects of 750 MW Grid connected Solar PV Projects under JNNSM Phase-II Batch-I

47 comments :
The bids for JNNSM Phase-II Batch-I have been scrutinised for their proposal and the list of projects for a total capacity of 750 MW. The following is the list of projects that have been selected under Part-A and Part-B of the scheme. Both the parts have been allotted with equal capacity of 375 MW under the VGF sought by the bidder  basis.

Project-wise Allocation for DCR Category (Part-A) 
Sl. No.  Bidder Name  Project Capacity as per Bid Submitted Project Capacity Allocated (MW) VGF Sought by Bidder in (INR/MW)
1 Swelect Energy Systems Ltd.  10 10 135,00,000 
2 Sharda Construction & Corporation Pvt. Ltd.  10 10 139,50,000 
3 Today Homes And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.  10 10 144,50,000 
4 SEI Suncells Pvt. Ltd.  20 20 147,29,000 
5 Today Homes And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.  10 10 169,50,000 
6 SEI Sitara Pvt. Ltd.  30 30 186,97,000 
7 Laxmi Diamond Pvt. Ltd.  10 10 202,00,000 
8 Today Homes And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.  10 10 209,50,000 
9 RDA Energy Pvt. Ltd.  10 10 212,00,000 
10 Palimarwar Solar Project Pvt Limited  10 10 216,40,000 
11 Solairedirect Energy India Pvt. Limited  20 20 219,00,000 
12 Azure Power India Pvt. Ltd.  40 40 220,00,000 
13 Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd.  10 10 225,00,000 
14 Solairedirect Energy India Pvt. Limited  10 10 229,00,000 
15 Azure Power India Pvt. Ltd.  20 20 230,00,000 
16 Waaree Energies Pvt. Ltd.  50 50 235,00,000 
17 Hero Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd.  10 10 239,00,000 
18 IL&FS Energy Development Company Limited  20 20 239,99,000 
19 Green Energy Development Corporation Of Odisha Limited  20 20 240,00,000 
20 IL&FS Energy Development Company Limited  20 20 241,00,000 
21 Ranji Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd.  20 20 244,99,872 
22 Welspun Renewables Energy Ltd.  20 5 245,60,000 
TOTAL CAPACITY  375 MW 

Project-wise Allocation for OPEN Category (Part B) 
Sl. No.  Bidder Name  Project Capacity as per Bid Submitted Project Capacity Allocated (MW) VGF Sought by Bidder in (INR/MW)
1 Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd.  10 10 17,50,000 
2 SEI L'Volta Pvt. Ltd.  20 20 73,29,000 
3 Finnsurya Energy Pvt. Ltd.  30 30 81,99,000 
4 Rishabh Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.  10 10 85,00,000 
5 SEI Suryalabh Pvt. Ltd.  30 30 87,28,494 
6 Finnsurya Energy Pvt. Ltd.  10 10 96,99,000 
7 Medha Energy Pvt. Ltd.  20 20 97,79,439 
8 Backbone Enterprises Limited  10 10 99,00,000 
9 Today Homes And Infrastructure Pvt.  10 10 99,50,000 
10 Focal Energy Solar India Pvt. Ltd.  10 10 99,89,000 
11 Gujarat State Electricity Corporation  10 10 104,00,000 
12 Enersan Power Pvt. Ltd.  10 10 108,00,000 
13 Acme Mumbai Power Pvt. Ltd.  20 20 113,99,884 
14 Belectric Photovoltaic India Pvt. Ltd.  10 10 117,90,000 
15 4G Identity Solutions Pvt. Ltd.  10 10 118,00,000 
16 Acme Rajdhani Power Pvt. Ltd.  20 20 118,98,897 
17 Today Homes And Infrastructure Pvt.  10 10 119,50,000 
18 Focal Energy Solar India Pvt. Ltd.  10 10 119,99,000 
19 Hero Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd.  10 10 122,00,000 
20 Acme Gurgaon Power Pvt. Ltd.  20 20 129,99,943 
21 Vishwaj Energy Private Ltd.  10 10 130,00,000 
22 Azure Power India Pvt. Ltd.  40 40 130,00,000 
23 Hero Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd.  10 10 131,00,000 
24 Focal Energy Solar India Pvt. Ltd.  20 20 131,80,000 
25 Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd.  10 5 135,00,000 
TOTAL CAPACITY  375 MW
Read More

Coal India Limited (CIL) Restructuring Plan - A Concise view of Deloitte's Draft Report

No comments :
Deloitte recently submitted a draft report to the Coal Ministry has recommended three restructuring options for Coal India Limited (CIL).
The first option, which is also the most plausible one, calls for carrying out internal changes in structure, system and roles to reform the holding company and its subsidiaries. Under this option CIL will continue to operate in its current form but with certain organizational changes. This restructuring alternative focuses more on empowerment in the current as-is structure. In the context of restructuring this will be the most non-disruptive alternative. The current structure has features of centralized control as can be noticed from bulk purchase of heavy equipment, maintenance of executive manpower pool and liaising with central agencies. However, as per the report, it is important to look into certain facets such as market concentration of power and customer orientation and realignment of roles and responsibilities with requisite changes in the Delegation of Powers matrix. In this option, there is no change in the legal holding structure of CIL.
Under the second option, Deloitte has suggested creating Independent Mega Regional Companies out of CIL, while CIL will cease to be the holding company of the coal producing companies. Each redesigned entity will have a production capacity of range between 70-160 MTPA as the initial commencement level and migrate towards 200-300 MT within 5 to 7 years thus creating mega regional CILs. The company formation will be made in such a way that each of them will have sustainable reserves. Once the Mega regional companies are formed, each of the companies can spin off production focused Subsidiaries - each with capacity 30/40 MT. Under this alternative mega regional companies are created, with CIL no longer playing the holding company role for these coal producing companies. This is expected to lead to disruption on account of various manpower aspects.
In this option, the entire legal holding structure of CIL will undergo a change, with CIL no longer remaining as the holding company for the producing subsidiary companies. The seven coal producing subsidiaries will be merged into CIL and then subsequently de-merged into independent entities in selected combination.
Under Option III, Deloitte has recommended phased creation of independent Entities with continuation of holding company during transition. This option calls for a gradual change in structure to create more viable entities in a phased manner. Under the option Entities with production base of 80-100 MTPA may be progressively carved out of existing CIL structure and made fully independent entities. For e.g. MCL, NCL and SECL may be taken up in the first phase. CIL will continue to hold rest of the subsidiaries as the incubator. Under the option provision of further sub division can be based on sustainability potential across all independent companies.
In the third option, MCL, SECL and NCL will be carved out from the purview of CIL and will become independent companies. As per Deloitte, this can be achieved by two alternatives. First is through merger of MCL, SECL and NCL into CIL and subsequent demerger of business of these companies into separate companies. Second alternative is through de-merger of Investment Undertakings of Investment in MCL, SECL and NCL into New Companies (New Cos) and subsequent listing of new companies or/ Exit Offer to public shareholders in new companies.
In its overall evaluation, as per Deloitte, if business transformation measures are implemented, the achievement of CIL objectives is possible through the first option with minimum disruption. If the challenges persist and the objectives are not met, Deloitte has recommended that the third option (through Alternative I) may be considered.
 Source: Praveen Patlolla, BHEL Executive, RCPuram.
Read More